Monday, December 13, 2010

MRAs Need To Take an Etic View of Rape, Denounce Feminist Emic Rape

Julian Assange's rape case has made the emic/etic distinction highly relevant in this day and age. Before rushing to pronounce rape allegations true or false, it is important to make clear where we are coming from. This would help clear up a great deal of confusion. As Wikipedia puts it,

An "emic" account is a description of behavior or a belief in terms meaningful (consciously or unconsciously) to the actor; that is, an emic account comes from a person within the culture. Almost anything from within a culture can provide an emic account.

An "etic" account is a description of a behavior or belief by an observer, in terms that can be applied to other cultures; that is, an etic account attempts to be "culturally neutral."

Within the framework of radical feminism and Swedish law, these charges against Assange would indeed make him a rapist if found by guilty by one of their kangaroo courts (which do not even allow a jury of peers):

Gemma Lindfield, for the Swedish authorities, told the court Assange was wanted in connection with four allegations. She said the first complainant, Miss A [Anna Ardin], said she was victim of "unlawful coercion" on the night of August 14 in Stockholm.
The court heard Assange is accused of using his body weight to hold her down in a sexual manner.
The second charge alleged Assange "sexually molested" Miss A by having sex with her without a condom when it was her "express wish" one should be used.
The third charge claimed Assange "deliberately molested" Miss A on August 18 "in a way designed to violate her sexual integrity". The fourth charge accused Assange of having sex with a second woman, Miss W [Sofia Wilén], on August 17 without a condom while she was asleep at her Stockholm home.

In Sweden, as well as Norway for ten years now and I'm sure a lot of jurisdictions corrupted by feminism, having sex with a sleeping woman is rape (Norway is even one step ahead of Sweden and just increased the minimum punishment from two to three years). Even a woman one is already sleeping with and who will not even realize she has been "raped" until days or weeks later when she has her regrets for some reason, like the man not calling or sleeping with someone else, and often not until a lawyer versed in feminist law has explained to her that it is rape. I was amused to see this delay referred to as "rape latency" on a Swedish blog; this is just one of the absurdities one has to posit in order to prop up the feminist concept of rape and make it internally consistent.

But all of this is merely emic rape, intelligible solely within a radical feminist framework. This point cannot be underlined enough. No reasonable man or even reasonable woman will consider this rape and nor should we respect this law or have any sympathy for the "rape victims" it defines into existence. We need only acknowledge that this definition can be used at a woman's whim to mobilize a gang of blue thugs against men, even internationally, as we have seen -- and then we need to fight it. I certainly advocate defending yourself against thugs with brutal violence, but it is equally important for men to subscribe to an etic definition of rape. Resistance to feminism thus starts in your head, and the etic view of rape would be the one used by evolutionary psychology. Etic rape is sexual intercourse resisted by the victim to the best of her ability unless she is threatened by death or serious injury. It requires a kicking, screaming victim; so if Sofia Wilén woke up and did nothing to resist, she was not raped. This also corresponds closely to the common-law definition ("carnal knowledge of a woman not one's wife by force and against her will") and the definition used by most jurisdictions until very recent feminist corruption of justice. Norway, for example, used a definition of rape I can agree with until the year 2000. Feminist rape law reform has spawned terms such as "rape-rape" to distinguish feminist rape from real rape, indicating that people don't truly buy it and deep down maintain the etic view.

Allow me now to quote our great Western literary canon. This is a from a sex scene in The Crying of Lot 49 (p. 29):

She awoke at last to find herself getting laid; she'd come in on a sexual crescendo in progress, like a cut to a scene where the camera's already moving.

If Thomas Pynchon was a feminist, he should have written that Oedipa "awoke at last to find herself getting raped." Or at least she ought to realize she'd been raped by the end of the book, and it ought to end with a rape trial rather than a stamp auction. Now, I know a great many feminists have read this story, and other accounts like it. Do they really think of rape when they hear something like this? No, it is only when convenient in order to bring down state violence on a man that they reinterpret ordinary sex as rape. I don't recall any discussion or mention of rape when we read Lot 49 for class as a graduate student in English, and that is because it does not occur to women unless they have an ulterior motive that this can be rape. They don't really want to reinterpret the canon to find rape everywhere or even act like the feminist definition is valid in their own lives -- unless they have a specific axe to grind.

Men do everything we do in order to get laid. That is why men do great things. Julian Assange founded WikiLeaks so that he could have young, beautiful groupies and fuck them. And he did. He is quite alpha, yet he is vulnerable to feminist sex law because that is how far it has gone. No one is safe. All men need the men's rights movement to stand up for the nullification of feminist rape law. The fact that Assange is incidentally involved in other controversial business and is wanted by the USA is a red herring here. These ridiculous rape charges can easily stand on their own and get men locked up. It happens all the time. I am glad this is finally starting to sink in, and rape accusers relying on the feminist, emic definition will hopefully face a great deal of derision from now on. Needless to say, it is equally ludicrous to call sex without a condom "sexual molestation." It makes sense emically within a bizarrely sex-hostile feminist setting, but men should refuse to stand for it anymore. Nor do we accept that there is anything wrong with "using our body weight to hold a woman down in a sexual manner." This is what's otherwise known as the missionary position, presumably, and it is perfectly respectable.

Assange has yet to prove his chops as an MRA and I don't know if he is one. Now is the time for him to come out as an anti-feminist or MRA. If he is one of us, he will not deny the charges, but rather attack the Swedish law itself. He has done nothing wrong even if the charges are true -- nothing that can even tarnish his reputation -- so it would only make him look like a foolish feminist to deny them. The rest of the world has already caught onto the fact that feminism is what's on trial here. A rape trial will expose emic feminist rape to a level of scrutiny it cannot survive. The cat will be out of the bag for the feminist rape industry, and scorn will shift to their alleged victims. I think we have reached the point of critical mass with this case, and at the very least women won't be able to accuse rape so smugly any longer when there is no etic rape. Sweden is making a mockery of itself here, which is well-deserved, but many countries are not that far behind. Now I hope the entire climate of opinion will change so that our legal systems can be reformed throughout the Western world. Imagine how many men are imprisoned due to feminist emic rape. It will occur to us that miscarriage of justice has occurred on a grand scale and the backlash against women will be cataclysmic -- I hope.

Thus it is possible for rape accusations to be both true and false at the same time. The accusations against Assange are quite possibly true within their emic setting. But they are decidedly false in an etic, culturally neutral sense even if the women are telling the truth. So the question becomes not whom to believe, but whose side are you on? Men have the power to decide this in our favor. Let us now toss the feminist definition of rape in the trash bin of history.

93 comments:

Anonymous
said...

So by your logic, the man who may well be Britain's most prolific multiple rapist, John Worboys, shouldn't have been convicted in the first place because he was enough of a gentleman to drug his victims beforehand?

If a woman is drugged against her will (forcibly or unbeknownst to her) by the rapist specifically in order to accomplish sex with her, then it is rape by my logic and was defined as such by pre-feminist rape law. So John Worboys may well be a rapist.

The problem is feminists have corrupted the definition to where sex with any unconscious woman is rape no matter why she is unconscious or how willingly she got into the situation with the man. Sofia Wilén went to bed with Assange and had sex with him willingly. Then she woke up the next morning by him penetrating her without a condom, but she didn't resist and they parted on good terms. It did not occur to her that this was rape until days later when a policewoman or prosecutor explained to her that it legally is in Sweden and that they would love to trump up rape charges. She also needed the bad influence of Anna Ardin before deciding to talk to the cops, but it does not appear that even this nasty feminist bitch realized it was rape until lawyers explained it to them.

The feminist definition has reduced rape from a traumatic event to a mere technicality. Rape law is a tool in women's arsenal against men if they want revenge for any reason after sex. Just about any relationship includes rape in retrospect when it is so loosely defined. If, say, a woman had sex at some point just because the man threatened to end the relationship, then it is rape in Sweden and Norway. All it takes is any threat at all no matter how light and even if the man is perfectly entitled to carry out the threat. No wonder "That's rape in Sweden" is a global joke. The more seriously the state takes rape, the less serious it seems to people. Rape is now mostly a trivial crime with a draconian punishment thanks to feminism.

"Threatens to end the relationship" means the man says he will break up with the woman or get a divorce unless they have sex. It is RAPE. Any threat will do, and here is proof. The Norwegian legal concept of rape as officially defined by the government:

As explained in that link, the definition of rape was profoundly expanded in the year 2000. Prior to that escalation, the level of threat had to be death or serious injury. And sex with unconscious women was not rape, but a much less serious offense, unless the rapist drugged her against her will explicitly to obtain sex. Now everything is rape. Mens rea was abolished as well. And finally now in 2010, the minimum sentence was increased from 2 to 3 years, so we are actually one step ahead of Sweden.

On Sunday 15 August, Monica told police, [Anna Ardin] told her that she thought Assange had torn the condom on purpose. According to Monica, [Ardin] said Assange was still staying in her flat but they were not having sex because he had "exceeded the limits of what she felt she could accept" and she did not feel safe.

The following day, [Sofia Wilén] phoned Assange and arranged to meet him late in the evening, according to her statement. The pair went back to her flat in Enkoping, near Stockholm. Miss Wilén told police that though they started to have sex, Assange had not wanted to wear a condom, and she had moved away because she had not wanted unprotected sex. Assange had then lost interest, she said, and fallen asleep. However, during the night, they had both woken up and had sex at least once when "he agreed unwillingly to use a condom".

Early the next morning, Miss Wilén told police, she had gone to buy breakfast before getting back into bed and falling asleep beside Assange. She had awoken to find him having sex with her, she said, but when she asked whether he was wearing a condom he said no. "According to her statement, she said: 'You better not have HIV' and he answered: 'Of course not,' " but "she couldn't be bothered to tell him one more time because she had been going on about the condom all night. She had never had unprotected sex before."

To make it clear, that quote means "it is not necessary that the threat be about anything illegal or punishable." They cite the example of starting a rumor about a woman. The point is the threat does *NOT* have to be serious at all. Ending a relationship would easily qualify, as Minister of Justice Hanne Harlem gloated in VG soon after the new law was passed, on 06.03.2001 (paper version, but you can look it up yourself):

I don't know if it has happened yet, and imagine it would be difficult to get a jury to convict if the entire case was based on a threat of divorce, but the law is clear: it is rape. (And they are working on abolishing the jury anyway and replacing it with professional feminists, as Sweden has already done.)

Feminist rape law reform has been a complete success (except the jury is still around). This is all very good for women, but if you are a man and support this legal definition of rape, then you are a complete mangina. Real men will fight this and not take rape seriously as long as this is the law. The feminist police state is out of control. The feminist reign of terror is complete and must be resisted with equal violence.

And by the way, rape does not even have to be sex. Merely rubbing a penis against a woman's stomach, for example, is rape in Norway:

Feminist rape law reform has been a complete success (except the jury is still around). This is all very good for women

No it's not. Clearly, having guys like you around them is no advantage for most women. I mean, you could easily be pacified and do some work instead by the occasional mindless lay and a baby or two, and everyone would be better off with it. Also you're assuming that most Norwegian women would like to profit unfairly by feminist nuttery like this, which is underestimating them if my time growing up and living with them meant much.

So again you try to blame someone - the cops, women and so on - when in reality that's just what the world has come to, not a group behind a conspiracy or someone profiting and you not.

Things such as Swedish women insisting they would like to have more children than they are actually having because society discourages them to have them, doesn't that bother you? Basically the fact is both sexes are suffering to some extent, yet you just try to remedy the situation by making their and your situation worse.

You're saying Norwegian/Scandinavian women should be treated in the worst way possible because they don't want to have sex and kids with you, yet they get less kids than they want, just as you. Seems a bit.. cheap to your own flesh and blood, doesn't it?

Most modern women/aging cougars would probably want to be married off in an early traditional way anyway, it's just that it wasn't profitable for the men they were dating to commit, because they could have the milk and not the cow, and now they have a younger woman. And it wasn't the women's choice, because nobody told them about it.

Pro rape cop killer anti feminism, it's a bit of a negative philosophy, don't you think? I do understand not to passively accept your fate as an evolutionary dead end, but you're not being very constructive about it. Which you have the possibility to, so why not try. Can you post some more positive stuff for a change, except stuff about dead people you don't like and feminist rape philosophy?

True, I could easily be pacified by pussy. It would be ridiculously simple for a woman to prevent me from lashing out -- by means of love rather than hate and state thugs enforcing feminist laws. But society prefers to treat me like an enemy simply because I am male, and so an enemy is what they will get. Hate is a rather unreliable means of containing behavior and the endgame is likely horrific interpersonal harm, but that's how it goes.

It probably has to get a lot worse before it can get better. Women won't give up feminism until the negative repercussions outweigh the benefits. Contributing to this process is constructive and idealistic, downright altruistic.

I realize that feminism is not a simple conspiracy. Feminism is most aptly described as a social problem, I think, but it is in effect a sexual trade union for women and they pretty much all at least tacitly support it around here. Feminism is admittedly a mixed bag for women, particularly as they get older, but they do profit much more than they lose, and I am entirely on the losing end. The standard payout to the accuser for a successful rape prosecution in Norway is 100,000 Kr, just to name one clear example of feminist profit. This amounts to at least 7 millions each year directly transferred from males to females at gunpoint, based on a corrupt definition of rape. Feminist society caters to female hypergamy above all else and at any cost; everything is designed to drive up the price of sex and make sex ever more elusive and risky for men. I feel the oppressive effect of feminism personally out there in the field looking for pussy every night: the price has doubled since buying sex was criminalized. As with any feminist law, the purpose is to drive up the cost of sex across the board and prevent men from having any cheap outlet. Some men will turn violent as a result, but as long as we are a small minority, this is an acceptable risk for women. Female sexuality is worth a great deal more than I can offer in this market, so I have no peaceable option.

If women are having fewer children than they want, then this is their own fault. Women have complete control of reproduction, while I am powerless to reproduce and have no sexual agency besides rape. Women could have vastly more children simply by not having so many abortions, so no sympathy there. I am not discouraged from seeking sex even though the price is prison, so why should I care if women face some vague social pressure to not have as many children as they want?

I display a negative philosophy only because I live in a hostile environment. Feminist rape philosophy is institutionalized, so of course men need to pay attention to it. Duh. Feminists have made sex law reform such a priority for good reason. It is equally important for MRAs to strike it down, for the same reason. Men aim for cheap sex while women want the opposite. But unlike women, we can't effect social change by marching through the institutions. Since women hold the democratic power, violent activism is our only hope.

Celibacy is quite literally a fate worse than death. I have so much hate and aggression pent up inside me now that being positive feels absurd, but I suppose I could try to write something happy on occasion. After all, I do have some success stories in my past even if I have nothing to look forward to but revenge.

Consider: Women in the state of modern western society are the bourgeoisie, holding monopoly power over the distribution of sexual gratification, a commodity not just necessary for mental health but indeed the very continued existence of the human race. This monopoly of the specifics of distribution is legally entrenched in every industrialized country with massive penalties for breaching it, and even the statistics quoted by the most wild-eyed servitors of the bourgeoisie suggests that it is upheld in upwards of 99% of all sex transactions. The sexual proletariat, therefore, scratches just the tip of its yawning need by conforming to the edicts issued by the Wall Streets and Chateaubriands of the movement. These edicts are increasingly arbitrary, historically unprecedented and unknown in a state of nature - sexual equality, nonviolence, monogamy, and consent. And even these merely scratch the surface; there are also nebulous, contradictory and ever-shifting considerations of wealth, status, material possessions, social marketability, personality characteristics, fashion, and arbitrary matriarchal definitions of beauty decreed from on high as quite literal barriers to entry. All bourgeois monopolies seek to protect their power base by attacking those who would undercut the source of their power, and here too we see the expected result. Strippers, porn stars and prostitutes are all derided by the reactionary mouthpieces and it is demanded that the State put them out existence. And why not? They are seen as scabs or bootleggers, responding to demand by distributing products of comparable value for a far lesser cost outside the traditional business model (this is to be seen in the claim that these professions are "debasing" to women, i.e. it literally lowers the value of their salable commodity.) The rapist, therefore, commits a revolutionary act, retaking some power from the oligarchy that in a coup d'etat gained quite literal control of the means of production, not of just ultimate commodities but labor-power itself.

The rapist, therefore, commits a revolutionary act, retaking some power from the oligarchy that in a coup d'etat gained quite literal control of the means of production, not of just ultimate commodities but labor-power itself.

I'll tactfully assume that's consciously intended as a wickedly funny parody of the Eivind Berge mentality, because it certainly made me laugh.

Excellent analysis, Anonymous. A sort of sexual communism is precisely what I am advocating. Even though I am a born libertarian and socialism of any kind has always been abhorrent to me, societal conditions now justify rape and omega insurrection. Nature has given women so much power by making sex a female resource, which is fair, and then on top of that the state has now taken women's side in everything and made laws to maximize the cost of sex, which is not fair. I am through taxes forced to finance women even though I have no access to their bodies, and pay for their children too although I can't reproduce myself. In fact, I am forced to finance the police state that will imprison me even for buying sex from willing women. There is no fucking way I will put up with this shit much longer. I used to think of sex all the time, but now I think of killing pigs half the time.

My outlook for 2011 is very grim indeed. I am incessantly seething with hatred so profound there is no way I can survive this year if I don't get laid. There is absolutely no way I can or will take another year of involuntary celibacy. My breaking-point is at hand. It is visible in my eyes, and people in the streets are increasingly startled by the rage roiling inside (this actually appears to entice women as often as it scares them). Feminism is working as intended. It is keeping me celibate; keeping undesirable men away from women. What they haven't taken into account, however, is that when you push a man into a corner using government thugs to enforce no legal sexual outlet, he will lash out with malice unprecedented in this society. This escalating feminist police state is also fomenting entirely new risks for pigs. Hate breeds hate and celibacy breeds insuperable violent motivation to the point of suicide attacks. I am admittedly no Rambo, but I am capable of symmetrical violence. There is in fact no way to prevent symmetrical violence -- or all of society would have to look like airport security and it still wouldn't work. The feminists have destroyed my life, and I am able to destroy at least one of their enforcers back before I am killed or incarcerated. And unlike Raoul Moat, who sadly left no manifesto or the cops suppressed it, I have made sure to leave behind an online record spelling out exactly why the shit hit the fan and how feminism is to blame. Then they can decide if they really want a society which fosters hateful celibate men. Not that I ever expect anybody to have sympathy for male sexual losers, but they will have to consider the risks of having us around.

Eivind, as I am a two-time survivor of suicide terror attacks, I have to say I wish there was some other outlet, some forum or panacea for this kind of rage. In the West, they used to have monasticism, when there was something to recopy, record, and protect, and I think (thankfully) that as an Israeli Jew I have somewhat of a civilization left to protect precisely because I am not a purely Western person, or only an Occidental by adoption. I think you may fall afoul of incitement laws, and I worry. As a translator, I think the isolation of piece work from home coupled with the long-term celibacy does something to one, and I seem to have resigned myself to a pure life of the mind. I was blown up by splendid, talented young women whose fault was that they were "damaged goods", non-virginal no-longer-potential brides in a traditional Middle Eastern society, and so there is definitely always a sexual aspect, but I shudder to read you contemplate that route.

I was blown up by splendid, talented young women whose fault was that they were "damaged goods", non-virginal no-longer-potential brides in a traditional Middle Eastern society, and so there is definitely always a sexual aspect.

That's consistent with what I've heard about female suicide bombers. An Orthodox Jewish cultural anthropologist who stayed with my family several years ago for a few days while he was giving some guest lectures in town told us all the cases of female attackers he knew about in Israel chose it as an alternative to honor killing. Male suicide bombers do it because they can't get laid in a polygamous society and believe they will get 72 virgins in Paradise, and females do it because they are coerced by relatives for sexual impropriety. Terrorism isn't about religion. It is about sex like everything else.

I think you may fall afoul of incitement laws, and I worry.

I'm not making specific threats against identifiable individuals here, so don't worry. But any cops reading this might rightly infer how I will react if they try to mess with me, say for breaking feminist sex laws...

Why don't you go seek out some hookers? Just because it is illegal doesn't mean that it is a real obstacle to you. It would be quite laughable if a dope fiend went around sober complaining that the government was denying him access to drugs. The law is just an abstract concept. You can buy sex any time.

While it is true that the war on drugs never kept anybody sober (they can't even keep drugs out of prisons!) and I could technically get a hooker right now if I spent all my money on her rather than pay rent, your argument sucks. The law is not just an abstract concept when it drives up the cost of sex even if I never get caught. It would be extremely myopic and naive to believe the law has no impact just because you are not personally getting arrested, and I am not that stupid. It also doesn't follow that you shouldn't be an activist against horribly oppressive laws that you are still physically able to break. For a drug addict, the war on drugs means drugs are a hundred times more expensive then they need to be, which along with constant persecution leads to a generally miserable existence. For a man who is not very alpha, feminism entails more expensive sex and the constant threat of police ruining his life at any woman's whim, and just as we need activists for drug policy reform, we need martyrs for the men's movement. The drug war is even more senseless than feminism inasmuch as the latter at least benefits half the population, while the war on drugs is only good for government and the drug traffickers they help reap insane profits because the market is so unfree.

If women had no laws to criminalize most of male sexuality, no coerced equality and especially not so generous welfare, sex would be much cheaper. It would be within my means. This I am sure of from personal experience. When I lived in Tennessee, women would knock on my door all the time offering cheap sex. I could get it for as little as 20 dollars and seldom paid more than 30. Here the cost is over ten times as high due to more advanced feminism. I was also breaking the law in the US, but so were the whores. Here only johns are criminalized, which is so blatantly misandristic that I don't feel women deserve to be paid. I feel they deserve to be raped. Outside of Scandinavia they at least pretend anti-prostitution laws are about "morality" or somesuch rather than shameless oppression of men for the benefit of women.

I would have to pay more than I can make in a day for just a few minutes of female touch. It would take a week to earn a night with a woman. If the sexes are supposed to be equal in this society, I shouldn't have to pay for it. Sex should be coerced out of women just like other resources are coerced out of men in the name of equality. Women don't deserve equality and then payment for sex on top of that, while the man is made into a criminal.

People in Norway fuck around a lot. Even with hypergamy, there is a lot of sexual activity. Very few men are alphas, most aren't. Yet, a considerable part of Norwegian men are in relationships, most of those men - betas. Many of these regular non-alpha men are fathers. The typical scenario among Norwegian youth is that the hot ones hook up with each other. Sure, there are many bachelors too. But they just stay single because they want to try out different options instead of settling. Many Norwegian men have sex abroad, through hook ups or with prostitutes, despite the law. I have personally seen a place in Northern Norway, where a Russian prostitute lived, and the local business man told me that "these ladies make us very happy" (ok, it was some 6 years ago). There is a lot of no strings attached easy hook up sex in Scandinavia and there is no slut shaming.

What are you gaining from threatening violence? Are you waiting to be reported to the authorities so that you can go on about how oppressive the system is? Do you think it's ok to threaten violence when things like Arizona shootings happen in the world?

Your hatred and awkwardness was already visible in your eyes a year ago. It is not attractive to women. Even though you say some are enticed by it (I doubt it though, maybe just morbid curiosity), why not hook up with those women (you MRAs always state that women love psychos and killers). With all your online screaming you should be attracting some weirdo chicks by now.

It seems that it's more about making a point for you and not actually loving a woman. Your ideology is very cruel and unappealing. You are always going on and on about the same thing and not even trying to change things in your life.

You are not financing women, you are financing the infrastructure and your own welfare state which you use. Which is also finance by women. You are not financing anything, since you haven't really had a job. You have probably paid less in taxes than the average Norwegian woman your age.

And to think that there might also be people who are pissed off by your constant vilification of the welfare state, your entitlement attitude and your constant threats to women. They might also get fed up and come after you and do things to you. That would be very sad. It would be very sad if you did something or if something would happen to you. So stop torturing yourself. The country is not going to change, only you can change yourself. Most Norwegian men are content with the situation, they don't have to support a woman, plus they get no strings attached sex. They are certainly more content than Muslim men who blow themselves up, or men in other parts of the world where they are in distress and ruin their own and everybody else's lives.

Most Norwegian men are not oppressed, they are peaceful and content, and mostly happy which they deserve to be.

Paying for prostitutes was legal 6 years ago. Feminism has endowed the pigs with vastly increased violent power not only against johns but across the entire gamut of male sexuality since then. There are new laws against everything from bestiality to grooming, and minimum sentencing has been dramatically escalated. There are also recent procedural changes in how trials are conducted and how alleged victims are accommodated and legally represented designed to convict more men, and more are in the works. I don't think you should be so smug about the relative peacefulness of Norwegian men continuing into the indefinite future no matter what oppression you throw at us. Your rosy fantasy does not match experience on the ground. Do you really think there is no limit to how far you can push men? Do you think Norwegian men are incapable of retaliation against tyranny? Muslim suicide bombing is merely another symptom of sexually excluded males, and it has reached Sweden. We could easily be next, and I doubt I am the only native Norwegian with enough pent-up resentment to join a violent insurgency at the drop of a hat at this point. It would have to promise pussy in this life rather than the next, but I am ready to fight and have nothing to lose. I don't mean this as a threat -- merely as an observation and insurance against being dismissed as crazy or a common apolitical criminal after the fact -- and I am not so stupid I will give prior warning about specific violence. Just last week it was revealed, or at least claimed, in the news that the authorities have given up on keeping everyone with extreme views online under surveillance; that it isn't realistic to keep track of them all anymore. This tells me there must be so many angry men around here now that I can afford to be largely forthright. I will stay within the TOS, of course, so my blog isn't deleted, but I don't have to sugarcoat my discontent.

Seething rage sometimes comes across as confidence, I think, which is attractive to women. So sometimes there is a positive reaction, but not enough to get laid. Women do indeed throw themselves at killers and psychos, but I am not quite there yet. I am mostly just perceived as your garden-variety creep at this point; just another beta women reckon they can safely ignore while they ride the proverbial alpha cock carousel.

It seems that it's more about making a point for you and not actually loving a woman.

You are wrong. I will continue to be an armchair MRA if I get a girlfriend, but I won't be out there on the front lines fighting blue thugs unless they attack me first. Life is all about loving a woman -- ideology is always secondary.

With our borders flooded by non producing, criminal, violent, demanding third world immigrants expecting to live on the welfare state, you bet this country will change.

There is a lot of no strings attached easy hook up sex in Scandinavia

Compared to the rest of the world, yes. But what this means is just that women basically have free alpha prostitutes, while the large majority of men aren't attractive enough to enjoy much "no strings attached easy hook up sex", simply because women prefer to have their no strings attached sex mainly with a small group of selected higher ranking males.

and there is no slut shaming

Of course there is, it's just less intense than other places.

plus they get no strings attached sex.

Again, you have problems with this concept. You seem to think that just because girls are free to slut around like they're free to do everything else in Norway without being coerced by their families to become suicide bombers means this slutty sex is spread around in an even fashion, making the male population all cozy and warm. If fact, most of it ends up with charming, violent assholes, criminals, sportsmen, minor or major celebrities etc. Then there's a significant minority that gets a thin spread of random puss, basically the local tournament winners, but not the national champions. Then you have the majority, who gets a round or two or nothing during a lifetime. Not much to look forward to in terms of random free sex if you're a man and you're not a winner, in other words.

What they get if they're lucky is a wife that according to current statistics will leave him in a few years, then suck him dry for everything he's worth via child support in a system totally rigged against men.

So yes, the country will change, either by perishing or by reforming. Because the status quo isn't sustainable.

I have personally seen a place in Northern Norway, where a Russian prostitute lived, and the local business man told me that "these ladies make us very happy" (ok, it was some 6 years ago).

OH. MY. GOD. You actually talked to some business man who said he paid hundreds of dollars to screw some Russian prostitute in Norway's coldest wastelands who was probably there because she was too ugly for the Russian market. They had CONSENSUAL ADULT SEX and he ACTUALLY ENJOYED IT TOO????! The horror!!

Well, I can assure you this is all part of our shameful history now, since our leaders have wisely decided that consensual sex can no longer be tolerated unless it's regulated in whatever fashion it sees fit for the moment. That happy businessman is probably more in Eivinds mindset now, at minus 30-40 degrees and 2-3 months of no sunshine, as long as he hasn't managed to escape the country.

Meanwhile, the Russian hooker is probably trying to find out if her kid can eat leaves while she's being beaten over the head with a vodka bottle from her alcoholic husband. Everyone loves a happy ending.

Sorry, Eivind, but when it comes to loving a woman... you don't strike as someone with much warmth or empathy. Sorry, it had to be said as it is very apparent, though it doesn't mean you don't deserve to be happy. It's just that sometimes it is hard to get sex from women without love.

It is good that there are laws against bestiality and grooming (there are such laws in many countries), the West is already sexually degenerate, these laws need to be in place to protect children.

I don't understand why you bring Muslim suicide bombings into this, as they are a completely different issue. The bomber in Stokholm was a religious radical who had a grudge against the Swedish society which he does not belong in. He also had objections against the Western foreign policy and that seems more fair. However, he had no place in Scandinavia to begin with and his act of terror has nothing to do with the sexual habits of Swedish men.

The world is changing very rapidly today, chaos is ensuing and it is possible that there will be more social problems. But it is possible that it will be Scandinavia that will retain the social order for the longest. If the Scandinavian social bonds disintegrate, and their women become unprotected, those nations will be in peril and I think Scandinavian men know this instinctively and are trying to protect the system. We know, for instance, that there are many angry men in America now. It couldn't be just because of sexual frustration – after all, they have loads of porn, prostitution, game and free hook ups. I'm pretty sure the average American guy today is having way more sex with way more partners than his dad or grandad (ofc, it doesn't make him happier). What they are angry about is the changing social systems, lack of jobs and uncertainty about the future. Prepare to have more angry men because of these reasons and it is not the fault of the women.

Btw, Eivind seems like a very atypical Norwegian man, most Norwegian men have a completely different spirit and culture. It's not a crime to be different, but you are not exactly in a position to speak for all men.

You are saying that average Norwegian men don't get much sex. Do you think average Muslim men get more? Norwegian men are very promiscuous, and having lived in Norway and dated them, it's apparent that most of them have rather good lives (on average, healthier, live longer lives, are richer, have more lifestyle opportunities). It is quite visible how loose the sexual habits are and it is regular people who are fucking, not just alphas. There is a group of marginal men, of course, but these are guys who are very passive and won't do anything to attract the women, yet they don't go after the ugly women who are on their level (ofc, everyone wants the 20 year old blonde). Sure, the Norwegian women have it good, that can't be denied, but then again Norwegian men have a lot of freedoms that men in other parts of the world don't have. There are quite a few singles, but it seems that most people are in relationships. Most men are betas (and most women are average beauty wise), and it seems that many of those betas are married or co-habit with a woman. Norway has one of the highest birth rates in the Western world, much higher than in the countries where women are less protected (such as Southern and Eastern Europe). How would that be possible if the majority of Norwegian men disenfranchized? You cannot raise that many kids without a stable family, not even in Norway. The men are participating actively, that's why. It's almost a success story.

And, no, I didn't say there was anything “horrific” about having prostitutes in the Arctic village of Alta. :) It was just a bit of surprise that they had a small red house there where they lived, it was almost cute (honestly, I don't think it's that wrong because in the North they lack women). And I doubt the guy paid her hundreds, as Norwegian men are very stingy and I doubt that's what the market price would have been. This businessman was actually married and had kids. He has a good life out there as he has a good job with Statoil. I don't know exactly whether he visits whores himself, he just said: “These ladies make us very glad”.

Like I said, there is a lot of consensual adult sex that is out there for free. And it's absolutely not regulated.

Btw, you have a very stereotypical view of Russian women. Not all of them have a vodka drinking husband, many are quite well off these days (oil) and are pampered. One thing they certainly don't complain about is that their men are stingy.

Btw, Eivind, I hope you will realize at one point how banal the MRA phrases such as "proverbial cock carousel" really sound. Many women don't even sleep around. I know several Norwegian girls in their early 20s and they have very few sex partners. Actually, they only sleep with someone who is their steady boyfriend.

We know, for instance, that there are many angry men in America now. It couldn't be just because of sexual frustration – after all, they have loads of porn, prostitution, game and free hook ups.

Guy who posted the communist parody here. The only part about it that is supposed to be comedy is the end part about rape. The other parts are completely serious analysis using the socialist/communist philosophy our modern western societies are clearly based off of.

About the quote text: You would be wrong. "Free hook ups" and "game" are for the alphas. You will never see someone who is successful at "gaming" who didn't win the proverbial genetic lottery. There are a lot of bullshitters and pretenders out there that get maybe 1 or 2 lays a year after approaching literally hundreds of inebriated women, though. This describes most of the online "PUA" community, really... The only thing game does for most men is provide a placebo for shy betas to approach women, but still get shot down almost every time.

This leaves pornography which is not really that satisfying, and prostitution which I believe is still illegal in America for both the buyers and sellers, which although it does make it better than the Scandinavian laws is still prostitution. A lot of guys don't even like prostitution for obvious reasons, such as the women not being into it and only being available due to cash transaction.

The feminist "sexual revolution" along with affirmative action, quota systems, divorce laws and the ease of falsely accusing men has created a sexual underclass out of the vast majority of men. Sexual impoverishment is rife. Some men have been so excluded that their only choice literally is prostitution.

Aside from the top 10-20% of men, the rest have become quite literal beggars. Some who don't fit into the alpha category may be able to beg and scrape to get a one night stand or a girlfriend here or there who will likely cheat on him and/or foist onto him some other man's child (DNA testing laboratories prove this is an epidemic) and then use the full force of the state to force the man to pay for that bastard child.

I can't say I advocate rape and can't quite figure out how someone would be able to maintain an erection to carry one out but until all of the anti-male laws and policies are repealed, I can't see myself having any sympathy for anyone who actually is raped--Real rape of course. I have nothing but hate for those who falsely accuse via things like buyers remorse after a night out because their boyfriends/husbands might find out they're unfaithful trash.

There is no longer slut shaming anywhere in the west. That is a feminist myth. Feminists believe that women should have the right to fuck like the alphas they choose. They seem to think all men are doing this, but that's not so. On The Spearhead, you'll find a recent article about the "Apex Fallacy" which better explains their thought process.

The only time a woman is called out on her sexual behavior now in the west is when she's quite literally caught out on betraying a man in some way such as having some other man's child and/or cheating in a marriage or long term relationship.

So is prostitution legal in the States or not? It seems pretty ripe there. Lots of porn culture going on and putting out as well.

So basically you're saying that 80% of men are sexually frustrated. I don't believe you. I could agree that 80% of men cannot have sex with gorgeous 20 year olds, but that they can't access sex, I don't agree with that. For the simple reason that most people still are in relationships. Sure, there is a family crisis, but nevertheless most people are in relationships. Most people are either betas or average looking women, and they pair up with each other eventually, despite hypergamy. Most women settle because they simply have no other choice. Only now these choices are appearing.. such as becoming a single mom, but that has serious implications. You guys might think it's a rosy scenario with the welfare and all, but the fact is that it is very hard to be a single mom unless you make big bucks, as the welfare state, even in Norway, will never be able to substitute a real paycheck. Sure, some women will go their own way but many will still settle. These are the normal, average wives of betas that are all around, you just don't notice them cuz they're not hot porn models.

And I'd be careful with this categorization of men into alpha and beta. Most men actually display a combination of those traits.

Women are also different and have various preferences. I even detest certain alpha men, such as cocky CEOs who don't care about employees or environment, or athletes that sleep around. I would never reward such a man by sleeping with him. Women actually look for the combination of both alpha and beta. Only physical attractiveness beats all.

80% of men are not sexually frustrated since obviously men with wives and girlfriends are having sex, but among singles, I think it's pretty true that 20% of the men get 80% of the sex and the rest only get laid rarely if ever. Women just don't notice the beta 80% and that's how you are able to think hookups are easy for men as they are for you. This is the apex fallacy mentioned above and you are making this mistake.

The singles scene is where I am stuck at the moment, so this is the reality I have to deal with, and it's not like I can easily get married when women are hypergamous and most of them are far more accomplished than I.

It is true that there are many singles in Scandinavia and people stay single for quite long. But eventually most singles still get together. Everyone generally picks someone on their own level. Or men tend to pick someone hotter / younger if they're rich but it's also kind of an "even" deal.

Women tend to be hypergamous, true, but there is no need to take this to extreme because women are different. Just look at who is dating who, they are not all models or rich people. Sex often happens when there is a certain communication, something particular that is liked about the individual. One woman might sleep with a guy that the other woman will never sleep with and vice versa. It seems that most single guys in Scandinavia do have sex once in a while, even if not often. And Scandi men do seem to try to hold out for the best woman they could get too. For instance, a typical guy in his 20s, let's say, moderately attractive/normal, with a blue collar job, would have sex once a month or so. But he won't rush into getting a girlfriend (who could give him more sex) because it's too much of a hassle for him. This is rather typical. And again, not all perceived alphas are attractive to all women. It's about the mixture of qualities that the particular woman needs/prefers.

>So basically you're saying that 80% of men are sexually frustrated. I don't believe you.

I am saying that 80%+ of the men have to beg and scrape to even get any and will have to jump through innumerable hoops and face innumerable rejections just to as they say "get lucky".

>You guys might think it's a rosy scenario with the welfare and all, but the fact is that it is very hard to be a single mom unless you make big bucks, as the welfare state, even in Norway, will never be able to substitute a real paycheck. Sure, some women will go their own way but many will still settle. These are the normal, average wives of betas that are all around, you just don't notice them cuz they're not hot porn models.

Half true. Yes, many of these women "settle" but then they fuck around on their husbands and take him to the cleaners in family court some years down the line.

The men are basically being used and discarded. Of course not all women are like that is true, but the vast majority are. There are exceptions to every rule, after all. Note that most women who "settle" in this way do so after spending their teens and most or all of their 20s slutting around with "hot guys." Suddenly, these beta men are getting come-hither looks from women who wouldn't give them the time of day some 5-10 years earlier.

The women figure out two things:

1) None of these "hot guys" will put a ring on it.

2) There aren't enough "hot guys" with money to go around.

So their gameplan becomes "marry Mr. Makes Enough to pay me to have my babies." And as I said about the DNA laboratories, the 30% bastardy rate proves many of these women don't give a fuck if those children are also the husband's. Years down the line, they can abuse the law to eject him from his own home, collect alimony+ child support and go back to fucking guys they're most attracted to.

Maybe you [other anonymous] aren't into the same typical kinds of characteristics that the vast majority of women are, but there are exceptions to every rule as I said. Most other women are into guys who have the typical physical beauty characteristics that makes them wet (tall, handsome face, very muscular) and if these are present are usually fooled by some false bravado and bullshitting from a guy who is completely intolerable to actually be around. They think with their ovaries.

>So is prostitution legal in the States or not? It seems pretty ripe there. Lots of porn culture going on and putting out as well.

It isn't legal. I think there is one place where it is legal-- in Nevada. As you can guess, the prices quoted are sky-high. And the women who work there can be over the hill or close to over the hill and still command these high prices due to the scarcity.

The main difference when prostitution is illegal for both buyers and sellers (US model) and when it is only illegal for sellers (Norway, Sweden) is that the prices jump way up when it is illegal for the buyers and there is a distinct possibility of blackmail by the sellers. It makes it exponentially more dangerous to even attempt to buy those services.

>The main difference when prostitution is illegal for both buyers and sellers (US model) and when it is only illegal for sellers (Norway, Sweden) is that the prices jump way up when it is illegal for the buyers and there is a distinct possibility of blackmail by the sellers. It makes it exponentially more dangerous to even attempt to buy those services.

Should read ..."The main difference when prostitution is illegal for both buyers and buyers (US model) and when it is only illegal for sellers (Norway, Sweden)" but you get the point.

And a bit more on the "slut blaming" thing. It's actually been reversed to man-blaming. Often when a woman is found to have been cheating on a man, the first thing people do is question whether there's something the man might have done or say he must have done something to deserve it.

You hear things such as "he must have been neglecting her" or "he must not have been getting the job done in the bedroom" but you never hear these rationalization and excuses when it is a man who is unfaithful.

In fact, when a man is unfaithful, he is considered the scum of the earth. No excuses are made, no one seeks to rationalize it.

Look at the Tiger Woods scandal for a perfect example of this. People even let his wife beating him with a golf club slide. Can you imagine what would happen to a man who physically assaulted his wife when he caught her cheating? Exactly.

If 80% of men "have to beg", then that would really incentivize them to have steady girlfriends or get married. But many single guys do not want to commit. They would rather wait for opportunities to sleep around, it's a rather big part of men. And they all pretty much delay marriage until they're past 30. If they were in such stress, they would be making more of an effort to get the women. Ofc, for the man the ideal situation is no strings attached sex. For women love and exclusivity is much more important.

Well, I already said that physical attractiveness is what beats everything and one cannot argue against that, that is always true, both for men and women. But when it comes to these other alpha characteristics.. I'm not so sure. Many so called alphas strike me as real assholes or men with inflated egos. If I were given a choice of two guys I found physically attractive, one of who was a rich, aggressive alpha dude and the other a kind boy next door, I would definitely pick the latter. Many women also look for a faithful guy, and a typical alpha male wouldn't be that. What is the use for an unfaithful guy, is really beyond me.

The reason I asked about slut shaming in Norway was because somebody said it still existed, while I have never noticed it in Scandinavia. I was just worried that it still existed on some occasions.

And Tiger Woods is disgusting, he didn't deserve Erin in the first place. He betrayed her - she didn't want him in the beginning, but he pursued her and talked her into marrying him. He had to have a Nordic looking trophy wife, because in the professional gold circles one must show that one is in a monogamous relationship with a beautiful woman. Not only did he try to trick the public like that (pretend to have a good image while simultaneously leading a double life which he always wanted, that of a philanderer), he shamed Erin's name in the front of the whole world! That man was a disgusting hypocrite.

And, btw, cheating should not be tolerated in case of either men or women. One could argue that men biologically want more variety and this is true, but if we catered to that wish of theirs we would tear up the social fabric and there would really be no use of getting serious with a man. Maybe this is why men should be held to a higher standard. Wanting sexual variety is not an excuse to cheat. Leave your wife or gf and only then go to the next one. Same for the woman, hypergamy is not an excuse to cheat on your man, leave the man and then try to pull the "higher" man but don't cheat on your existing lover. It is baffling how far people seem to have gone from these elementary ethical norms.

>If 80% of men "have to beg", then that would really incentivize them to have steady girlfriends or get married. But many single guys do not want to commit.

You clearly know little about the laws of our "modern" countries in regards to marriage and divorce.

How many men know the laws or at least have known men who have been run through the grinder of the family court system? They know, some almost instinctively that there is no justice to be had there. We now have the highest rate of never-married recorded.

A woman can marry you and take you to the cleaners through no misconduct of your own. That is the reality. Women initiate 3/4 of the divorces, most of them for reasons amounting to "I'm bored." (I want to fuck other guys or continue fucking other guys without feeling any guilt)

It is called "No fault divorce" and she'll still make out like a bandit in the divorce. A wife can go fuck her husband's best friend in front of the husband and laugh in face face yet still get it all.

Worse still, in some of these countries, the government will jackboot you into a "common-law marriage" if you merely live with them for a couple years.

It's called being cautious. "Getting pussy" is not outweighed on the risk vs reward scale by being forced into being a slave via alimony and child support. Women can even refuse men in marriage sex now, and many do. They know as soon as they've got that marriage contract signed that they don't have to do anything. I know a few guys in sexless marriages.

I've heard of these stories over and over again. Well, it's not really like that in Europe. There must be a serious reason why you have it like that in America (my guess is Christianity as it focuses the responsibility on the man in the family). I don't see such bullshit in Europe. In Scandinavia they usually try to part peacefully without big hassles. I know many, many divorced European men, none of them have been economically devastated (they simply need to pay for the kids).

No fault divorce is an absolutely normal and rational thing. If you fall out of love with a person or if your interests in life diverge, or if you want to live alone again, you should be able to get a divorce. It benefits men too because many men have midlife crisis.

Besides, most couples cohabit without getting married anyway. I meant EXCLUSIVITY, not marriage (as it is not worth much these days). And most young men don't want to commit exclusively, unless the woman is very hot, they prefer to stay single, without the hassles of a girlfriend, and look for chances to sleep around.

You don't know what happens when people get divorced. It's a messy thing. No fault divorce is a bad deal. I don't care if people want to stay together or not but more often than not, the man ends up losing out bigtime because not only does it let them divorce, it lets the woman take just about everything.

Well as it seems, decades after our "Equality of outcome" oppression, most women still want to marry a man who earns more than them. The bigger earner loses out in no fault divorce. That's the man almost every time.

A lot of rationalizations there, though. You seem to think the vast majority of men can play the field. Pure solipsism with you not seeing or even considering the men you aren't attracted to. The Apex Fallacy at work.

Norway is just a place where women have a lot more sexual freedom, and they use it to fuck whoever they like instead of getting married to their slightly mentally retarded cousin or get killed, because they can. Women and men don't have more sex partners or venereal diseases thanks to prevention, even though there is a lot of unprotected sex. Maybe it's another world compared to some places, but not another planet. Do you really think Norwegian women with tons of partners are viewed the same as virgins or "nice girls" who only fuck their boyfriends and hide their one night stands if they have more than a few? A tramp is a tramp anywhere in the world, and the bounds and punishments might not be as harsh in Scandinavia, but girls who give it up freely are generally looked down upon by most people and considered the borrom of the heap, and usually have a lot of problems that cause their sluttiness.

No, I said, they think they can play the field, while in reality they really can't. They just hold out because they think they can.

And you MRAs always seem to forget about children. The work that women do raising kids is immense. By working and having kids, women are actually doing to full time jobs, this is still not the case for most men.

Personally, I think people should either have prenups, or just separate everything in half from the very beginning, including the man has to compensate somehow for pregnancy and the child's early years, from then on everything should be split in half. That would be more fair, but people would probably still not accept it.

Norwegian men are very promiscuous, and having lived in Norway and dated them

Norwegian men are very stingy

Balty, maybe the guys out of your league you were alpha cock hopping were promiscuous because you chose to have sex with an alpha male with access to lots of women? And that they were stingy because they didn't need to pay because they were alphas with lots of women who would bang them for free anyway? Do you even read and try to comprehend the stuff written here and see things from outside your perspective once in a while?

And I doubt the guy paid her hundreds

The market price for sex with a russian hooker is hundreds of dollars for an hour today, maybe he got it cheaper, who knows. It's not really that interesting, I think.

Like I said, there is a lot of consensual adult sex that is out there for free. And it's absolutely not regulated.

I never said there was a blanket ban on consensual sex in Norway, for women and the lucky few men who can get it. In Norway, your consensual sex is a state matter subject to whatever laws regulate it. The fact that you both want to have sex without bothering anyone else or deceiving anyone does not make it legal in Norway, only if it doesn't break any of the other rapidly accumulating laws in the area, that's the point I was making.

Well, yea, that's exactly my impression of how it is, I was just double checking, because it surprised me to hear there was slut shaming in Scandinavia (as there is practically none there). So it just comes down to individual choice, that is good.

By promiscuous I meant the general attitudes towards sex, that it's generally not a big deal. People just seem to have a lot of no strings attached sex, that's all. Even betas (or more precisely, men who have a combination of beta and alpha traits which is the majority of men).

And being stingy is across the board. This is a general consensus among women here that Scandinavian men are not generous. Which to me personally is totally irrelevant, as I prefer to always pay for myself and I enjoy parity. And I believe they shouldn't pay because they have already paid (namely, the rich Scandi guys who are the biggest tax payers have already paid for all the other guys).

Yes, I'm aware that many men are single and probably don't get much sex (at least not with women they desire). But sex is not a right. A woman's body belongs to herself, no one else. Sex is not a right, but a gift of love or gratitude. It is bestowed to someone special, a husband / sambo, it should not be dealt out to some random stranger. Sex is not a right, just like a provider husband is not a right (actually, it's not even much of an option/choice anyway).

I don't think you understand. A whole lot of strangers are still getting it. Just only the most physically attractive and wealthy ones, for the most part. The legal and social changes in the past 40 years have allowed women to have sky high standards, but haven't changed anything for men.

That's the entire issue behind Eivind's blog here. Governments are transferring everything else from men to women and making large numbers of men unable to get, well, anything really.

Of course, you don't see this because like most women you don't notice men who aren't attractive to you because they're below your socioeconomic status or whatnot. They're literally invisible to you... but there's millions and millions of them, and the author of this blog is one of them.

I understand the point perfectly well, but I don't agree with the premise and even the conclusions. I just don't think that this is because of the socioeconomic system, but because of the Natural order. Look at what happens in the wild, the 90% of beta males don't get to mate at all.

It is unfair to say that the wealth is transfered from men to women. Men are still the biggest beneficiaries of the system. Men still have more money and more free time. The thing is, if you don't want to procreate and raise your children the traditional way, then the state will come in because the reproduction has to continue at least somehow. The money is transfered to posterity, not women.

Yes, the majority of men are invisible (I for one only noticed the physically attractive men, but don't really give a shit about the socioeconomic status), but I am very aware of beta men, my father is a beta and I have hung out with betas all my life. A lot of beta men have interesting personalities. Most of my girlfriends are married to betas and I have had beta boyfriends (more like a mix of beta and alpha). In the end it equals out and people get someone that's on their level.

Your argument can be reversed for women in exactly the same way. Only a small group of women are really valued in today's society (not even mothers are valued anymore they way they should be). That is the group of young and attractive women, not even attractive per se, but preferably “sexy”, which is very small. All the other women are pretty much invisible. It is very simple. Even if you agree to fuck them, it doesn't really benefit the woman (she doesn't get anything significant out of it, while it's all that you really wanted). Besides most women work anyway. There is no fucking way that a Scandinavia guy, for instance, would accept his girlfriend not working and not being able to provide for herself.

I don't agree that men don't get anything. They have been largely released from their manly duties. They have much more freedom, they have the freedom not to get married but to dedicate their lives to themselves and have multiple partners. They have porn, in many places they have prostitution (and don't fucking lie that there is no prostitution in the West, I know damn well it's there and thriving, a multi million business). I personally don't think that this can make a man happy but it seems that this is what they have chosen themselves.

If those social changes would not have taken place over the past 40 years, do you really think women would still not prefer attractive and wealthy men? You think they would love average men more? No, they would simply be forced into marriage and forced to tolerate their husbands and this is what Eivind wants (a utopia at this point). If you are dependent on a man or if he provides for you, then, yea, you tend to become more amicable or even more romantically inclined towards him, but only a little... you are still essentially attracted to the more handsome guy anyway (unless you love your beta husband). Same as the man is always more attracted to the young and beautiful woman no matter how kind or nurturing the older or uglier woman is. These are the laws of Nature, and neither patriarchy nor feminism can change them.

Do you notice women that are not attractive to you? :) Rhetorical question.

Not, it can't. For every woman, no matter how relatively unattractive, there is an endless supply of betas and omegas ready to fuck her instantly and many will also have a relationship with her. I am one of them, and I have no equivalent pool of female losers that will have me. I have none at all. You can't compare total and utter loneliness to the attention even the ugliest women get. You really still don't get it and probably never will.

Most men are at least somewhat attracted to most women, while most men are invisible to most women. Certainly all women of reproductive age are attractive and not invisible at all, and old women have had plenty of time to get married. I started out with zero mate value and it isn't getting better. There is no comparison at all.

If those social changes would not have taken place over the past 40 years, do you really think women would still not prefer attractive and wealthy men?

They would be constrained to mate more with betas, which is all I ask. And I refuse to contribute to a society that isn't letting me reproduce and is actively enforcing celibacy.

But I already said that this is because of the Nature's design (or God's plan). You have already stated a hundred times that women are much more valuable when it comes to mating, for obvious reasons. It's like that in every society.

A man's readiness “to fuck her instantly” doesn't have a big value to a woman. There is a strong asymmetry in male and female sexuality and what each sex needs/wants. It goes without saying that a man will almost always want to fuck a woman, but for her it doesn't mean much unless the man invests in her and their potential pregnancy. While for the man, it's above all important to spread his seed. Sure, some men also love and want family, but that is already of secondary importance when it comes to mating. So for you subjectively it feels that women have it so good because they can have sex instantly, but for the women this casual sex has much less value than it does for you. I'm sure you know this very well. This illustrates it:

http://www.zazzle.com/difference_of_opinion_card-137119623195846505

It's not even true that ugly women get that much attention. Everyone has very high demands these days, thanks to the culture. Think about how men always obsess about fat girls. I think the ugly women used to get a lot more attention in the older times because back then they really were indespensable (every reproductive female had much more value than now).

But you are right that even ugly/average females may not opt for lower betas, because they don't really have a need for them. But it's also funny how so many of these lower betas still want young, attractive women and won't really make an effort for a girl on their own level, I guess I can't blame them, you can't help who you like.

You don't have to contribute, but do not spit on a society that is highly humane and well organized. You are benefiting from it, even if you are not having sex. Life would be much harder for a guy like you in other parts of the world. Ofc, it doesn't matter to you.

I agree though that having a more stable family situation, similar to that of what our parents had in the 1980s, when they were starting out, is much better than now. I think it was easier for women back then too, because the standards were lower for women and the good, useful, family oriented men were more available.

And, btw, the fact that you feel that society is somehow responsible for your own private reproduction, is a very un-libertarian notion.

Yes, but I never said that. Society is responsible for making reproduction more difficult for betas by coercing equality for women and providing them with resources and protection without having to put out, at the expense of men.

Of course sex by itself is largely worthless to women, but there are some men they find attractive and in any case women hold all the cards of reproduction. It is not an equivalent situation at all.

http://www.zazzle.com/difference_of_opinion_card-137119623195846505

That's funny, but women don't really think with their hearts any more than men. Men think with their dicks and women think with their ovaries. The woman is really thinking about how she can secure resources for her offspring and herself. Women are sex objects and men are walking wallets, basically. That's the way it is at any rate until people fall in love, which men do at least as often as women.

Your argument is clear, it just needs to be added that without women's own labor this very protection would not be possible (in a highly consumerist, highly (post)industrialized, sophisticated society with a high living standard). You seem to believe that betas are robbed, while in reality women simply receive back the taxes that they have paid themselves. Women actually do more for society than their original role would require – e.g., they pay taxes plus they do most of the child rearing. Besides only a part of resources go to women (and children), a big part goes to men (such as men get free education, including trade schools, companies run by men get high quality labor due to state sponsored education, as well as universally available public healthcare, companies get to use high quality infrastructure which they have not invested in to maintain, men and companies can save resources because of absence of crime which results from preventive socialist policies, men get social benefits too, including paternal benefits, the public sector is open to men as well, in fact, the highest and best paid posts in the public sector are predominantly held by men). Above all, men are not obliged to support their women because they have their own income and nurseries are also cheap which spares a lot of hassle.

Yes, it can be tough for guys sometimes, because they don't know what to offer women. But on the other hand, guys who don't want to get married or be a provider, are not forced to be.

That poster is in the store window that I pass everyday and every time I look at it I'm like “Damn!”. But, yea, it's true. Ultimately, it is love that determines everything.

You still don't understand. Empty platitudes about "love" don't change the fact that the state is coercing a forced equality of outcome and that this is extrinsically lowering the mate value of 50%+ of all men.

All of your talk that the highest paid are men is again the Apex Fallacy at work.

Do women in the modern state of western society even know what loneliness is? I think not. If you forced a significant percentage of women to endure for just one year what a lower beta has for a lifetime, I bet they would probably change the suicide rate that currently stands at 4-5 men for every 1 woman into something much closer to equal.

Women have been in the workplace for over 40 years now and men have had plenty of time to develop qualities that attract women. There are many other important qualities in men that can help them win women, besides having a better job (the existing marriages prove this). Women have been forced to adapt to changing realities, so do men. I do sympathize with men however because they haven't really been told this.

What I said has nothing to do with this Apex fallacy. Men still get paid a lot for doing the tough jobs, such as drilling on oil platforms. While women are still prevalent in many low paying professions, which are also tough, but in a different way. You don't see nurses getting paid as much as the guys who work on ships. Why aren't men rushing to become teachers? As much as I love some of the male athletes, they are still overpaid. Sure, you can argue that they make the sales. But in that case why are Hollywood actors still much higher paid than actresses? You can argue that some of the wealth from the highest CEOs trickles down towards women, not just wives but also prostitutes and such that they pay for, but it still doesn't matter to regular women because regular women don't get access to that anyway.

Well, surely, some women must know what loneliness is, after all, mathematically for every single male there should be a single female. The society in general has just become more atomic, individuals are increasingly isolated, there are more singles, both male and female, who simply find it comfortable to live on their own. Do you think it's such a great feeling to date some so called alpha male (or just a guy you fancy who isn't necessarily an alpha male), hold out until the third date to fuck him and then watch him leave you without ceremonies? That must be a fun feeling, huh?

Male suicide is very painful of course and more should be done to prevent it. But it has biological, not just social reasons. More men commit suicide not just because there is more pressure on them to succeed, but mainly because they have guts to do it. And this is because men biologically have more guts in general to perform things like cutting, strangling, etc. Women are just too “pussy” to do it and I guess women have more to lose by suicide if they have kids. Men also commit more suicides because society doesn't allow them to “be weak”, thus everyone pretends that they are fine and does nothing to help them (they keep everything inside). Blame it on sexism in society and traditional gender roles that don't allow men to expand their identities. Btw, women are pressurized today more than ever, the beauty standard is much higher and much more sexualized than what it used to be, plus there are pressures to earn money and be good mothers. Apparently women are less happy than they used to be, yet we don't see mass suicides from them (we do see things like bulimia though). Because they are not biologically as prone to it.

Women are attracted to physical appearance and money first and foremost. Yes, yes, I know, you'll bleat on about some nebulous bullshit about personality but won't be able to quantify what it even really means or what is found attractive in it.

You'll also forgo the point that, as a man, unless you are physically attractive or moneyed enough to begin with, no one cares about your personality.

So what if a man is short and like many men has lost his hair? These are qualities that are repulsive to women-- who are, proven by many surveys and studies to be even more discriminating than men visually. What is such a man to do? He can do nothing to "develop" anything here as those cannot be changed.

>Why aren't men rushing to become teachers? As much as I love some of the male athletes, they are still overpaid.

Pedophilia hysteria.

>But in that case why are Hollywood actors still much higher paid than actresses?

Simple. Because like with CEOs and the like, even amongst actors the ones paid the most are the ones women fawn over the most. Sure, you may see guys like George Clooney, Johnny Depp and so on making so much money and get all that spotlight, but at the same time you aren't considering the other guys who make... not so much.

Apex Fallacy.

>Well, surely, some women must know what loneliness is, after all, mathematically for every single male there should be a single female.

Except not because what is happening is that these women are opting into a virtual harem where some men have 3-12 women at their beck and call and many men have... nothing.

This is why so many women have the idea that "men only want sex" and cry that "the asshole didn't call me back."-- they're all going after the same guys. It's pretty funny actually.

Did you pay attention here? You assume that everyone buys into the traditional and defunct model of relationships of the 1950s and before. They don't. The social and legal controls that held those relations together are gone and have been for over 40 years.

>Male suicide is very painful of course and more should be done to prevent it. But it has biological, not just social reasons.

Explain why suicide rates were at near parity some 50-60 years ago and now it is 4-5 males to 1 female.

You can't? I can. It's all of the anti-male legislation and social changes which have disenfranchised the vast majority of men.

One of the most wonderful qualities that men have is a sense of humor. It makes you want to be around the guy. Nothing is better than an evening at home by television with a warm guy cracking jokes, really alleviates the stresses of the day. Other qualities men can develop – being a good father, helping to watch the kids. Many women also like men who are well groomed and well dressed. You can always spend more time in the gym (just like women are expected to be thin). Btw, I never denied that physical appearance is of utmost importance, it beats all, but for both sexes. Personality is not that unimportant either.

We all know that men select women mainly based on their looks and age, hotness wins over personality big time. A man can at least win a woman with money, a woman can't do the same with a man. Money is something you have control over, something you can acquire through personal effort, looks and youth you can't acquire or keep for long. Good looks and youth are much scarcer than money, wealth is more accessible, you cannot control things like aging or facial symmetry or waiste to hip ratio. A man can work hard and “buy” a desirable woman's company, a woman cannot do the same with a handsome man she desires.

I guess being short for a man is like being fat for a woman. But a short guy can still make lots of money and get a woman. A fat ugly girl can't make a bunch of money and find a nice boyfriend because no one will desire her for who she is anyway. And shortness is not even that terrible, sure, it's nice that a guy is tall, but it only matters that he is like 2cm taller, so if a guy is like 173-77cm, it's still ok, especially if he is husky and has broad shoulders (women are shorter anyway). It's all relative depending on how it's combined with his other features.

Men not becoming teachers is not because of pedophilia hysteria but because it doesn't pay much. Why not more men working in nursing homes? Gerontophilia?

I don't see a reason why George Clooney should make more than Angelina Jolie but he probably does. Plus they discard actresses after the age of 35.

I already told about the other guys who are not rich CEOs or stars. There are many trades that pay very well, such as welders, or working on ships.

Most women do not want to be a part of a harem, but in a stable, monogamous relationship. Actually, that harem you described sounds pretty horrible, even though it's true, you don't want to be there for long (or be there in the first place).

In all countries, no matter how developed, the male suicides by far exceed the female ones (even though women are biologically more prone to depression):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_suicide_rate

This is not just because men are more pressurized to succeed, but also because men, by their intrinsic natures, are more steadfast when it comes to performing acts of violence, including towards themselves. It has something to do with testosterone. Unfortunately, younger men are more susceptible to social pressures and are very vulnerable as they reach adulthood.

One of the most wonderful qualities that men have is a sense of humor. It makes you want to be around the guy. Nothing is better than an evening at home by television with a warm guy cracking jokes, really alleviates the stresses of the day.

In my experience, this is absolutely true. If I can't make a woman laugh (with me, not at me) within minutes of us meeting - and indeed vice versa - the chances are that any potential relationship is doomed from the get-go.

I met both my last two long-term partners online (I ended up marrying the second one), and a shared sense of humour was all we had to go on at first, since we had no idea what we looked or sounded like. And by the time we finally met, other factors almost didn't matter, since we knew so fundamentally that we'd get on. (In fact, in both cases we ended up having sex on the evening of the first day we met face to face, which isn't normal practice for me at all).

By definition of the way the exploitative way economy is setup, very few men can be wealthy enough to attract someone based on that alone. You seem to think men can just "get money" which is patently false.

And then you use... fat women who can actually lose the weight with eating right and exercising as a counter-point to short men (it isn't; fat men are also excluded).

Face it, women have it far easier than do men thanks to the current cultural zeitgeist.

Women may not like the virtual harem setup that IS happening, but they don't seem to care that there's plenty of single guys out there. They would choose hot cad over average guy that won't fuck and chuck them just about every time.

And then they use the free state handouts or corrupt law that transfer wealth from men to women to pay for it all when they get knocked up by those same cads.

And that of course is just one small part of the argument that men like Eivind have against the socialist welfare state and how negatively it affects men.

But of course, you don't care. You have zero empathy for those you don't deem useful to you in a personal way. That is a typical attitude with the modern woman.

There is no biological explanation for the higher suicide rates and life expectancies.

If you look at the statistics now and then look at them from 50-100 years ago, you will see an alarming trend. They were about the same! Now, men live years less and kill themselves 4-5 times more often.

When you have an ideology running a pogrom against the common man for decades, this is the result. Big surprise.

No, I didn't say one can “just get money”. I said getting money is easier than getting/being born beautiful or maintaining youth. Like, there is a very handsome man that I have a crush on (but who is not a high earner). If I was convinced that by increasing my income three or even five times and sharing it with him, would give me a good chance of getting him exclusively for myself for long term, I would break chairs to make that income (or do whatever it takes that is within the realm of my capacity). But I know that no matter how much I make, I still won't get him. The only thing a woman can do is invest in her hotness, but there is always a limit to it, whereas with money, once you start making it, you can get even more by investing in the stock market, etc. Or go to a poor country. Money is more accessible than beauty, youth and charm.

But you are right that having a relatively good income will not buy you love or won't even guarantee a sexy young partner. Then again why do you keep complaining that women are gold diggers? From what I see.. sure, women want stable men, but they mostly pick based on looks, personality and values/outlook on life.

Ok, maybe fat women wasn't the best comparison (even though there are women who will never be thin or even average). Let's just stick with the comparison of aging, which a woman cannot control, yet even divorced guys who are done with child rearing want only younger women.

You insist that women will always choose a hot cad, but admit that men will also always choose a young hottie, even if she's flaky or a bitch. Men are famous for leaving their old wives and going after young, sexy bitches. :) That's just reality.

No, you are wrong. I care very much about the Scandinavian welfare state. I am troubled by the relatively large number of single men out there. Those men should be out there raising good kids.

Well, we know that it's either the very young men that commit suicide (understandably so, as they go through a difficult development stage, have low status, are more restless), and older men (midlife crisis, etc). I don't know where you got your numbers, but the numbers I googled show that the suicide rates (in the US) have decreased from 1950 (In the US, the national suicide rate decreased by 14% during the last decade of the 20th century). The sex ratio is constant (about 4:1). Unfortunately, boy suicides have increased. My guess is still testosterone / boldness which translates into effectiveness. And men apparently react differently to existential problems. Also, remember that thing you guys keep mentioning about the bell curve and how men tend to be either geniuses or more psychotic. But also the male identity issue and substance abuse. But, yea, if they separate a guy from his kid, that could certainly cause more suicides.

This topic, along with the boy crisis, will be such a fuck up for MRAs because they believe that this is all due to social norms and anti-male practices/legislation, while some of it clearly stems from sex differences. But it should definitely be addressed as a gender issue.

>Like, there is a very handsome man that I have a crush on (but who is not a high earner). If I was convinced that by increasing my income three or even five times and sharing it with him, would give me a good chance of getting him exclusively for myself for long term, I would break chairs to make that income (or do whatever it takes that is within the realm of my capacity). But I know that no matter how much I make, I still won't get him.

That is because men are not materialistic. At the same time, men do not place as high an emphasis on physical appearance as do women.

Men value one thing the most, the one thing that cannot be found in the modern woman: Loyalty.

>Ok, maybe fat women wasn't the best comparison (even though there are women who will never be thin or even average). Let's just stick with the comparison of aging, which a woman cannot control, yet even divorced guys who are done with child rearing want only younger women.

You insist that women will always choose a hot cad, but admit that men will also always choose a young hottie, even if she's flaky or a bitch. Men are famous for leaving their old wives and going after young, sexy bitches. :) That's just reality.

You mean the richest men. Again, apex fallacy at work.

Only the richest middle-aged men can even hope to attract some "young hottie". You seem to think that men don't age, either. They do.

Far more often than not it is the woman who divorces to go after other men, and then uses the full force of the state to coerce her now ex-husband into paying her half or more of his monthly income for many years, and gets the children as well because, well, she's a woman, I guess. That's the current family court line, anyway.

But you focus on the men on top who can afford to go after "young hotties" because again you have a solipsism problem. You cannot see outside of your own experiences and cannot see the men you are not attracted to, which I surmise is probably at least 75% of them given how you post here.

>No, you are wrong. I care very much about the Scandinavian welfare state. I am troubled by the relatively large number of single men out there. Those men should be out there raising good kids.

They can't well raise kids when they are flat-out excluded by incredibly superficial women, now can they? And a large percentage of children born don't even belong to the putative father when some of these "beta men" get into relationships to boot.

It's quite sickening how the modern woman acts, really. Worse still how the legal system handles these violations.

>Well, we know that it's either the very young men that commit suicide (understandably so, as they go through a difficult development stage, have low status, are more restless), and older men (midlife crisis, etc). I don't know where you got your numbers, but the numbers I googled show that the suicide rates (in the US) have decreased from 1950 (In the US, the national suicide rate decreased by 14% during the last decade of the 20th century). The sex ratio is constant (about 4:1).

All of the stats I've seen show that from the great depression (where it was about 2men:1woman) all the way to 1950s and beyond the suicide rate for males went way down to near parity while women's stayed about the same, and then after the feminist pogrom on men begun, it started going up, and up and went way back up past even great depression levels.

Women's of course, went down after that whole feminism thing. This despite the fact they report as being "less happy" nowadays. Curious, that.

And I didn't say that men, even the rich ones, could easily get a young hottie. Of course, they can't. I just said that that's what they desire. It's important what men want (not what they can get). Likewise, women can desire the hot cads all they want, but they can't get them. It's just the reality of what people want, not what they can get (of course, they can't get it).

I don't focus on the men on top, because, honestly, I am intimidated by those men that most people consider alpha men (and I don't really have much in common with most of them). There is only one small group of alpha men that I really like but of course I'm not an idiot to focus on them as that would be a waste of time. I focus on the men in the middle and the best possible trade off I can get which is always a combination of alpha and beta qualities (which I myself also possess in the female equivalent).

It seems that suicide rates equalized around 1960s-70s, which, interestingly, concides with the sexual revolution (and advent of feminism, disintegration of traditional gender roles, pill, abortions, promiscuity/ free love and establishment of no-fault divorce). During that time women's suicides reached the highest recorded level, while men's suicides were at the lowest ever point, following a sharp decrease (something must have made men happy during that sexual revolution, hehe).

Here's a graph from Britain, but I guess it can be compared to America as well:

Then the rates for men started to climb up again in the 80s and 90s. They have been decreasing for both men and women since, reaching the lowest level for men in 2007 (now lower than in the 1970s, and much lower than during the Industrial revolution, the interwar period and the 1950s). They might increase again a little bit with the current recession.

Gender roles haven't been dissolved at all. Not for men. They're still the same but now you have not only to compete with other men but with artificial, stacked competition where women will be selected for a job over you on a non-merit based reason: because they have a vagina.

Or here in Canada, you have hilariously transparent "women and minorities" (read: no heterosexual white males) policies, where some will tell you that if you're a heterosexual white male then you shouldn't even bother applying.

And the sexual revolution was a failure. Men thought it would lead to "more sex" but all it did was lead to a redistribution of what was already there to a smaller percentage of men.

You don't even pretend to understand sexual frustration and the things it can cause. A woman cannot be sexually frustrated in the way a man can. You could literally go out and find someone to fuck you every night if you wanted to, were you sexually frustrated.

In men it leads to things like suicide bombers and terrorism, because they have no real outlet.

During the Sexual revolution they did try to dissolve the traditional family and there were less pressures on men to perform as responsible fathers and husbands. They were largely released from this role. Maybe later on they started assuming it again. But what happened during the sexual revolution was the rise of the libertine man and that is still around and thriving. I don't have anything against sexual freedoms, they are wonderful, it's just that they have far stretching social implications both for men and women. You should have thought about this before you made Hugh Hefner your king, the paragon to all men and the ultimate alpha male. (Not in my eyes of course).

In most jobs, you still need to get the job done, so just having a vagina won't help there.

I do agree, however, that in places like Canada and the US, they should reward the good men a little bit more than they do now. There's a lot of guys there that are underappreciated.

There is never “more sex”, in nature, a male has to always fight for sex, that's just the natural law. Just like the woman has to always compete for the best male. I think what they have in the West now is already a very loose distribution of sex, with very lax sexual mores. Think about things like “pre-marital sex”, I mean, the term itself makes me laugh, but conservatives in America use it with full seriousness. That means that there used to not be sex before marriage at all! Or in Muslim countries they hardly get it too. I think it's better the way it is in the West, even though it has terrible consequences. If people handled themselves better and were more civilized about sex (and family) it would actually work very nicely.

No human has to be sexually frustrated because we can all masturbate. Sure, there are times when you really want a man (if you're not in a relationship), and women can easily get a very nice guy to help them out. But it's not as simple for the woman as it is for the man. Sure, there are times when you can be non-chalant about it and just have fun, but unlike for a man, a woman's dream is not to sleep around. Sure, it is very pleasant being able to have sex with a nice man whenever you want, but in the end it's just loveless sex (which is in fact a bit offensive to a woman).

I do feel for you because I think you do deserve sexual happiness, but do you think you will make women more willing by promoting things such as “pump and dump”, talking so triumphantly about it? You think women don't see how other women are just used for sex? Your whole male libertine culture is one big turnoff, unloving and selfish as it is.

And don't threaten with fuckin' bombs and violence. There is a malice that goes beyond sexuality that is behind terrorism. By justifying suicide bombers you are reducing men to some bestial state where they cannot control their impulses.

The answer probably lies with other men, not women. You should try to get more men out of the market, especially the most desirable ones. Try to get them married off at a relatively early age and committed to one woman. The other women would then not flock around them anymore but would sooner or later be forced to go to lower status men (only a part of women would choose to be alone instead, but then so be it, most would still want to pair up). Start with the men, and the women will follow, the herd animals that they are. :)

And I do understand about sexual frustration, of course. Especially given how sexualized modern culture is. Wherever you turn there is an oversexualized naked woman's body (ever thought about how it makes us feel as women? I know you don't care.) Looking at those oversexualized female images even makes me restless sometimes, how crazy it must be for man. If I was a young boy, I would go insane. So maybe Western women should put their clothes back on. Right, Mr Hefner?

You don't even pretend to understand sexual frustration and the things it can cause. A woman cannot be sexually frustrated in the way a man can.

Of course she can. She might be extremely shy and physically unattractive. She might be disabled. She might have all sorts of sexual hang-ups resulting from her upbringing or indeed from a traumatic event in her past (rape or similar sexual abuse, for instance).

You could literally go out and find someone to fuck you every night if you wanted to, were you sexually frustrated.

Suppose she's cripplingly shy? Or physically incapable of going out? She might be in a wheelchair, or looking after a sick relative. Don't these people count?

In men it leads to things like suicide bombers and terrorism, because they have no real outlet.

Yes they do. Their hands. And their imaginations. You don't need a woman to bring you to orgasm. I coped perfectly well with two and a half years of celibacy.

Even if Eivind believes what he says with every fibre of his being, there are some things that you simply don't say in certain environments. The lack of empathy that Eivind showed there (and elsewhere, and of course here) is so total that it's rather more than borderline sociopathic - and I suspect this is all too easy to pick up on in person.

Suppose she's cripplingly shy? Or physically incapable of going out? She might be in a wheelchair, or looking after a sick relative. Don't these people count?

You are profoundly out of touch with reality, Willikers, and I can prove it. You understand even less than the Balty. Any woman can have sex anytime she wants no matter what. A few years ago a Norwegian paper wrote about a dating site with handicapped women, and they were immediately inundated with men seeking sex. All the excess men became a big nuisance as soon as the service got a little publicity. I considered trying it myself, but decided it would be pointless amidst the stampede. Make no mistake about it, even an obese handicapped retarded woman's sexuality is worth infinitely more than a normal man. And any time men get a whiff of a sexual opportunity, of some loophole of easy sex, they will pounce on it in such numbers that I don't stand a chance in the competition, even over women with the lowest mate value. You have to be an idiot if you really think men will be deterred by her being in a wheelchair or having to come to the woman's house... A frustrated woman's needs are met so fast there is no way she can know what real frustration is. At a maximum she would have to place an ad if she doesn't get out much, and droves of horny men will pounce. Men like me who aren't even the most disgusting men; she will have plenty to choose from.

You don't need a woman to bring you to orgasm. I coped perfectly well with two and a half years of celibacy.

Of course you don't need a woman to have an orgasm, but if orgasms are all you can comprehend a man needs intimacy with a woman for, then you must not have any human feelings in you. And you call me a sosiopath... LOL. I'd say it's 90% about hugging at this point. If I don't get it, my seething hatred will drive me to a violent end.

Anyone who thinks that crashing a forum for survivors of sexual abuse by women (including people who were abused as very small children) and ranting about how "lucky" they've been frankly needs psychiatric help.

I don't need psychiatric help. I need to get laid, which is fundamental to life and not a medical problem. I'm sure psychiatry would lock me up and try to break me with psychotropic drugs to protect women and society if they knew my mental state, but do you realize how patronizing and insulting it is to call this "help" from my perspective? If anybody tries to force me into psychiatric "treatment," I will fucking kill them (or failing that, someone in the industry, eventually). Is that clear?

I most assuredly meant what I wrote on that forum with every fiber of my being. The lie that boys are "victims" if they get lucky is the most horrible insult I can imagine. If I ever meet a spoiled brat who fancies himself a "survivor of sexual abuse" by women, I will spit in his face, to say the least.

I never denied that women can get sex easily. I just implied that women don't really value loveless sex that much.

The best thing for you to be to go on a vacation. Fellow MRAs should raise some money to take you out to Thailand. It doesn't cost that much. They should take you there for like a month, so that you can forget about the rainy Bergen for a while and relax on the beach with some Asian chicks.

Or why not try a swinger's club. Or go to Amsterdam. You are suffering uselessly.

I don't need psychiatric help. I need to get laid, which is fundamental to life and not a medical problem.

But why, if you're so desperate to get laid, do you go to such extremes to make yourself appear to be so skin-crawlingly repulsive?

I simply cannot imagine any woman following the link I supplied, reading what you posted and the surrounding context and thinking "That Eivind Berge, he's such a dreamboat!"

Seriously, do you have any idea just how obscene it is to mock people who've had to live with sexual abuse for much of their lives? To actually tell them directly that they were "lucky" to be so abused?

In fact, it's interesting that someone assumed that you were posting a paedophile fantasy, because although I don't think you have any leanings that way, I suspect they picked up on the way that your absolute distortion of reality is identical to the way paedophiles function when they convince themselves that their victims really want their attentions.

I'm sure psychiatry would lock me up and try to break me with psychotropic drugs to protect women and society if they knew my mental state, but do you realize how patronizing and insulting it is to call this "help" from my perspective?

It's not intended to be patronising or insulting. It's merely a statement of the facts as I see them, based on your stated opinions and your recent behaviour, neither of which can fairly be described as sane or rational by a reasonable person. As the near-unanimous reaction to your comments in other forums demonstrates time and time again (another recent example).

If anybody tries to force me into psychiatric "treatment," I will fucking kill them (or failing that, someone in the industry, eventually). Is that clear?

You've rarely been clearer, but I suspect not in the way you perhaps intended.

I most assuredly meant what I wrote on that forum with every fiber of my being. The lie that boys are "victims" if they get lucky is the most horrible insult I can imagine.

But it's not "getting lucky", you absolute moron. These people were talking about being abused as children by female authority figures. Are you really so absolutely blinded by your gonads that you can't see how profoundly traumatising such an encounter could potentially be?

Seriously, Eivind, get help. It's far, far better to admit that you have a fundamental problem over and above a basic inability to get laid than let it lead you down a path from which it might be very very difficult to retreat. You'll also get a lot more sympathy, and who knows what that could lead to?

>You should have thought about this before you made Hugh Hefner your king, the paragon to all men and the ultimate alpha male.

You seem to either assume that I am some old man or that men are some monolithic group. Neither is true. I'm in my 20s. This all happened before I was even born!

>In most jobs, you still need to get the job done, so just having a vagina won't help there.

It will get you hired ahead of someone more qualified, thanks to affirmative action/quota systems.

>I think it's better the way it is in the West, even though it has terrible consequences. If people handled themselves better and were more civilized about sex...

And it's obvious they are never going to do this and that feminists pushed policies that are in direct opposition of such ideas in order to support "single mothers by choice" that get knocked up by the "hottest guy" they can bed and then have everyone else pay for it.

>No human has to be sexually frustrated because we can all masturbate...women can easily get a very nice guy to help them out...Sure, it is very pleasant being able to have sex with a nice man whenever you want, but in the end it's just loveless sex (which is in fact a bit offensive to a woman).

This is bullshit. How long have you even went without having sex with someone? Masturbation is not exactly a worthy substitute.

It's like I said, women can't really understand loneliness and sexual frustration because they can have it on tap 24/7 just by asking. You assume men just want strange anonymous sex and not that they're willing to have it because collectively they're fucking starved for any due to women's sky-high standards.

>I do feel for you because I think you do deserve sexual happiness...promoting things such as “pump and dump”,...You think women don't see how other women are just used for sex?

This isn't OUR culture. We didn't create it. This is the culture that we have observed and have told you why it is bad for society. If women really see it and see how other women are just "being used for sex," then why do they keep allowing themselves to be "used?" And by the same small percentage of guys to boot.

>And don't threaten with fuckin' bombs and violence.

Who said it was a threat? It's basal truth. Suicide bombers and the most extreme terrorists of the day that they're in league with exist because of mass male sexual impoverishment. Undeniable.

>The answer probably lies with other men, not women...

How does the answer lie with other men when it is the women who keep chasing the same small percentage of men, and the laws and policies which transfer wealth from men to women that allow this to be a workable model--for now, anyway. Until the welfare state goes bankrupt.

>And I do understand about sexual frustration, of course....Wherever you turn there is an oversexualized naked woman's body (ever thought about how it makes us feel as women?

That is not sexual frustration. Sexual frustration is the inability to get sex for a very, very long time like the blog author here, Eivind. You can get it anytime as a woman, as long as you aren't morbidly obese.

You talk about how the media shows women's bodies but how about how it shows men's? As a very small subset of male body types. Basically, the biggest genetic lottery winners. MUCH less variance than with women who are only really expected to not be fat. And these are the men that women go for.

It's yet another display of the 20% of men getting 80% of the sex, in other words.

You can get it anytime as a woman, as long as you aren't morbidly obese.

Are you serious? If you have a size 5XL female ass and it isn't getting worshiped and tapped at your whim in 2011, it's because you're too stupid to Google "fat". If you do, you will find large communities of desperate lonely fringe men willing to spend their time and money watching these women on their webcams in the vain hope of fucking them one day. Fat is where it's at, baby.

Do you honestly think that Eivind is the only one in his position? If he's got the balls to use his real name when writing a blog like this, what makes you think he needs to make any anonymous comments.

I didn't mean it to you personally (esp if you're in your early 20s), but modern men in general. Ofc, it's not your fault, but men by and large have accepted the hook up culture. They have also accepted the the mainstreaming and prevalence of porn (and just generally the whole uber consumerist materialistic culture that revolves around it), prostitution, hook ups instead of monogamous family life. This is what the majority of men have chosen as I don't see them going against the whole libertine lifestyle, too many men are apparently happy this way, just living on their own, no family responsibility and just hook ups. I really feel for younger guys who want love and family, but realize that men could change things only they wanted to.

That's why I said that you should start with men, get the alpha men and higher betas out of the market by putting them in monogamous relationships. Not gonna happen, right, because they don't want it. But you are right that men need to be differentiated, thankfully, at this point it is very easy. Assholes deserve nothing, the good men deserve to be rewarded, a very simple principle I try to live by.

I'm actually contemplating becoming a “single mother by choice”. I wanted to have a child when I was 23, but boyfriend refused vehemantly. That I wanted a child, was a taboo topic for most guys. I have paid thousands in taxes and not used any benefits, so I better get my mother's benefits. It's only for a year and a miniscule sum of what I have already paid in taxes.

Well, if you're asking me personally, then the longest time I've gone without sex was about a year. I love sex, but I'm often reluctant to have a random dick inside me, no matter how hot the guy is. The ideal / normal situation is just having sex with your boyfriend. Just to put it in context, I do masturbate almost every day, but ofc masturbation is not a worthy substitute (just like a dildo is not a worthy substitute for a real man), it's just fun and takes some of the steam off, that's all. It helps with the “sexual frustration” but ofc it's not a substitute for real intimacy and love making.

Actually, reading these MRA pages, has made me even more reluctant to have sex with random guys, even though I love men and love having sex with them.

Yes, it IS your culture because you approve of it (not you personally but the majority of men). I don't see men going against promiscuity as they enjoy it. Like I said, I personally don't believe this is what makes men happy but they have chosen it themselves. By paying what they pay for and by valuing what they value.

You seem to think that things will change significantly if/when the welfare state breaks down. But my feeling is that, yea, they could change a little, but not dramatically because most women are far more emancipated than you seem to realize, practically all young women are now equipped to work in the private sector, and most of them are professionals. Sure, many folks have worthless degrees, but there are plenty of professional young women who are trained in useful trades and who will be needed no matter how the economy will change.

Yes, men are also getting increasingly sexually objectified, but not nearly as much as women. And, no there is no variety when it comes to displaying the woman's body – it is always only very young, very thin, beautiful women who are airbrushed. If there was a varity and if the natural woman's body was represented in all its diversity, then the sight would be completely different. It is now too oversexualized. It used to not be like this just 10-20 years ago, you can see the huge difference in how women are portrayed if you just watch the videos from the 1980s or 1990s. Women were actually singers back then, now they all just look like prostitutes on the stage. There is not a single performer in today's mainstream pop culture, that can get away with not undressing and putting out. All the normalcy is gone and it's all about sexuality now. As I said, sexual freedom is great, but when you turn sex and the woman's body into commodity, don't expect to get happy and loving women. To be honest, I don't really see a way out of this.

I'm sorry you are upset about the male body being objectified but this is what we women have been living with all our lives. This is what people value, beauty and sexiness. You cannot blame women for going after hot hunks, if men themselves are going after young hot women.

Actually, when my society really DID break down due to suicide bombing, there was a rash of "first dates" taking place at someone's apartment rather than elsewhere, and sex became shockingly easy to get for single straight men in my home city. The reason women did not simply stay home in their apartments, was because of the possibility of a terrorist going door-to-door in an apartment block, and women are only infrequently armed. Hamas might want to kill me, but the indirectly did me a favor.

Feminists and women did with no fault divorce, welfare state and corrupt courts that allow paternity fraud and the like to go unpunished. Men don't want to commit when there's a good chance they will be legally run through a grinder with no redress for no misconduct on their own part. In other words, we don't want to pay for YOUR misconduct towards us. That is injustice and unacceptable.

Most women don't have any concept of justice, however, so it wouldn't at all be surprising if you can't understand what I'm saying.

>That's why I said that you should start with men, get the alpha men and higher betas out of the market by putting them in monogamous relationships.

Wrong. It will start with law and policy changes to make monogamous relationships and marriage viable and not an easy to criminally exploit sham institution for women to profit from as it currently stands.

>Well, if you're asking me personally, then the longest time I've gone without sex was about a year. I love sex, but I'm often reluctant to have a random dick inside me, no matter how hot the guy is. The ideal / normal situation is just having sex with your boyfriend. Just to put it in context, I do masturbate almost every day, but ofc masturbation is not a worthy substitute (just like a dildo is not a worthy substitute for a real man), it's just fun and takes some of the steam off, that's all. It helps with the “sexual frustration” but ofc it's not a substitute for real intimacy and love making.

How about guys like Eivind who go multiple years and can only get any by literally paying a straight-up large sum cash transaction to someone who isn't even willing or into it (and he has to risk prison and blackmail by doing so). Again you cannot understand the male viewpoint nor the sexual frustration aspect as you have options.

The vast majority of men take what they can damn well get. Which isn't much. And if it's "casual no strings sex" then so be it. You will never understand this because you have near endless options and will until you are over 40 and you will pretty much never be sexually starved like most men.

You can't get "relationships"? Men like Eivind can't get them either. Or sex either! There are men even lower than Eivind. Like this guy:

http://omegavirginrevolt.wordpress.com

Can you find any female equivalents of him? Of course you can't. But even he's not alone and not uncommon. In countries with less shaming of men who speak out about things like this, such as Japan, nearly 25% of the middle-aged men are actually virgins. Do you think even 1% of middle-aged women are? I don't.

>Actually, reading these MRA pages, has made me even more reluctant to have sex with random guys, even though I love men and love having sex with them.

Sour grapes. You are obviously here because you either find it threatening to the status quo that benefits you or because it intrigues you in some way because the arguments are both scientifically and logically sound, but it bothers you because you can't really refute it in any way and it speaks truthfully yet negatively of women's actions and intents.

There is the distinctive possibility you just want attention, though. That too is a very female aspiration.

>You seem to think that things will change significantly if/when the welfare state breaks down.

Oh, I know it. It means that laws and policies will have to be MADE equitable for men if the countries affected want to survive at all.

No more affirmative action/quotas means more men get good jobs. Women are by and far unwilling to work as hard as men. About 2/3rds of them are still polled to this day wanting to quit work and be a stay at home wife. Too bad they ruined that for themselves for now.

No more free payouts for bastard children means women need to be more careful with who they randomly fuck and choose men based on more than physical appearance/what makes their vaginas tingle.

There will be massive percentage of desperate women who can't afford to join the virtual harems of highly attractive men on another's dime anymore.

Equitable laws for family means paternity fraud and divorce theft would also go away.

All of this means that women will actually have to take responsibility for their own actions and stop trying to ride the cock carousel into middle-age and then think they can snag a sucker to take the financial fall for them.

And about male body objectification... one needs only to look at what women fawn over and find attractive to see the variance in what women find acceptable is far smaller than what men find acceptable in women.

As I said, men only care that women aren't overweight. Women also care about this in men but also further demand that men put in serious time working out in order to have muscle definition.

Look at women's obsession with celebrities. You will find no 45 year old men showing up in large numbers for the premier of something like you will with women and junk like "Twilight" where they get wet over the star of that movie, half their age. You will find no male equivalent to women's fixation on a small subset of male actors like George Clooney, Johnny Depp and the like.

You will find no male equivalent to the madness that is boy bands starting in the 50s with the Beatles where literal hordes of screaming women chased them down, and continuing to this day with people like Justin Bieber.

And of course a trip out to clubs/bars will see the women flocking to the best looking guys, time after time. This is easiest social experiment there is.

And then there is the large preponderance of virginal and involuntarily celibate men that exist. If men had such high standards in women's appearance as you claim, were men's standards higher, then WOMEN would be in the position men are in right now.

Eivind, a lot of men I've dated don't really appear to want a family. They have many other priorities in their life and seem to postpone forming a family for as long as they can. I had several long term relationships and none of the guys wanted kids (they were not alphas), they seemed perfectly content just the way it was. I don't want to invest too much of my time anymore in men who are not clear about their priorities (or who are not ready/willing to be a real partner and father and be dedicated to that, instead of just themselves and actually bring something to the table). Sure, there are still options (I'm emigrating soon), but I'm considering the option of single motherhood as very realistic. I don't see a point in settling for a man I don't love or desire physically, or being in a situation where I have to pull everything myself (both the relationship, earning money and raising the kid). It's only worth if a man is an asset, not a liablity.

No, the arguments are not logically sound, and while many things are both interesting and correct, I see large gaps in what MRAs say about women, which they apparently aren't aware of. But let them be unaware, the less they know about how it really is for many women, the more likely they are to fuck up.

What attention?? From letters on the screen??? I just want to write a couple of my thoughts publicly on an interesting, controversial topic, that's all, there's nothing else to it.

Sure, women want to stay at home and raise kids because working, earning money and simultaneously raising kids and keeping home is freaking damn hard!

No more “free” payouts (and btw, they aren't free, I fucking earned them!), will simply mean lower birthrates (yes, even lower than now). Btw, most women I know are not in some alpha harems but most are together with betas (or rather alpha/beta combinations). Average people just like themselves. The hot ones are either with the hot men or successful men.

There is nothing wrong with women liking hot men, it's only natural. Same as men fawn over hot women (think about PUAs who are totally obsessed with “9s” and “10s”, fucking losers as they are).

Yea, in America most men only care about whether the woman is not overweight. But even there men are sometimes picky, you think I don't read/hear what they are saying about women?? Read all these MRA sites and see how they're fucking dissecting women. No thank you. I'm tired of that attitude.

Yes, because a man's body without muscle definition is not as attractive as simply a thin woman's body because men are supposed to be bigger. Yes, I also love Tayler Lautner and it's only normal, it doesn't mean I expect the guy to be like him! I already told you above that I don't mind shorter guys either. I had a boyfriend who was overweight and one that was tall and lanky. So what, I still slept with them and loved them. What's wrong with wanting a partner you feel physically attracted to? I always tried to look nice for my boyfriends, it's mutual.

You don't see an equivalent of men's fixation on George Clooney (btw, I just thought of him the other day and I wouldn't choose him over this guy next door that I like, as much as you won't believe it), because men are fixated on porn stars (Jenna Jameson, and such). The whole porno industry is one big fixation. And btw, boys love actresses such as Megan Fox.

So what if women are fawning over hot men, it's normal. In real life they still go for regular men (every man has some attractive features, it's all about your taste and how the chemistry works out).

An concerning the bombing and women.. it seems that people become more eager to mate in war time and situations when they're endangered. It is quite typical that in some war zones the birthrates are curiously high. It must be some eros thanatos connection..

I'm not Eivind. I'm sure he has his own things to say about all of this, but it's curious how all you have to say is you "want someone you're attracted to" when you are presented with proof of women's sky-high physical appearance standards which exclude something to the tune of at least 60% of men right away on that alone. It's the rationalization hamster spinning.

Again, women are the cause of all of these problems. They changed the laws, they continue to chase the small percentage of guys. They want to mate like primates and have the producers of society (men as a collective) pick up the tab.

That men are in the largely sexless status they are now is proof positive that women are far more predicated on physical appearance than are men. You can't even argue this.

Not even with a weak evopsych argument if you at all believe in things like free will and human ingenuity and force of will overcoming animal behaviors.

"That men are in the largely sexless status they are now is proof positive that women are far more predicated on physical appearance than are men. You can't even argue this."

These are simply laws of Nature at work. Apparently, the truth is that women are no less visually discriminating than men (actually men are famous for it, and you can't deny that, all men want young, beautiful women, it's an axiom, it's been proven many times in history). And this is normal and in accordance with natural laws - everyone is attracted to beauty and symmetry. Ofc, there is also taste and subjective liking, but that is individual, what is universal is beauty and human attraction to it. Even babies differentiate and prefer more symmetric faces, babies who know nothing about status and such. Ofc, love goes beyond that and sees beauty in the one you love, but love doesn't happen that often. When women are not kept in poverty and they have their own means of survival, it becomes apparent what they REALLY like. Men have been for years told all kinds of untrue bullshit such as "A man only needs to be rich" and "men love with eyes, women with ears", "women always prefer older men", "the fair sex", "all women are for sale, it only depends on how big the sum", and similar bullshit which is not even entirely true in nature.

This is why, for instance, the Swedish men are so well dressed and healthy (because in an egalitarian society they have to maximize their looks).

Everyone chases "the small percentage". I know it's annoying to you that women value male looks, now that they can openly admit it. That they only chase a small group of men. But so do men. But men also desire the hottest piece of ass (you can see it very well on the street, at least here where I live). Well, good luck chasing that tiny percentage, to both men and women, we can say with 99% certainty that they won't get it.

Yes, when we can choose freely we go for young beautiful women, but our standards don't exclude anywhere near so many of the opposite sex as women's do. PUA standards are not representative of men. It's mostly hype and online posturing. If you read Roissy, you get the impression that men hate fat women, but that is simply not accurate. Fat women are only slightly less desired in the mating market and I myself love them very much.

I guess we both have a hard time finding love as in a family, but you at least have unlimited sex. I have neither. And you have the single mother option. At least you earned the benefits you will get, but that's not the case for a lot of single moms. There is something wrong with a society which allows women to choose that lifestyle simply because it is convenient to avoid betas and then make them pay anyway through welfare. So you are emigrating to Sweden or what? Scandinavia is great for women at the moment, but hopefully it will unravel soon enough. If MRAs don't get you, the Muslims certainly will.

Yea, I know women are picky (they have more at stake), I remember we were once in a club in Oslo with this acquaintance, and I remember she rejected one really nice looking 28 year old guy and when I asked her why she said "he is just a postman". Terrible.

Sure, sex is great, but, not to sound ungrateful, this "unlimitedness" has practically no value to me. It's just pleasure. I would give most of it to you if I could share it like countries share quotas. And being a single mother is not a picnic. But you are right that it's better than nothing. I don't think that surrogacy thing will work that well for guys, even though it's not bad. Single fatherhood is much more fair, and they are doing quite well with that in Scandinavia (it seems most have double custody at least and there are more single dads on average).

Yes, Sweden is women's paradise and I can't even express how fucking grateful I am for that. Yea, I'm planning to live there for some time at least (it's close). But I'm also going there for spiritual reasons (Iceland is a bit too far, hehe) and because I favor their male archetype.

Yea, Sweden has changed a lot in the past five years (the classical concept of the welfare state, the Folkhemmet, has actually been really distorted). It's changing very quickly now. I hope they will do something before it is ruined (it may take some time still). And I don't mind their MRAs, I agree with a lot of their stuff.

Oh, and on raising kids. Ofc, the nuclear family would probably be the best model, but we have to face the reality, people have moved away from that (not just women). But kids must still be born and the key is to provide the best possible economic means to raise those kids. It no longer matters who does it, two parents, single moms or single dads. That's just reality unfortunately. But it seems that Norway is still pretty close to that nuclear standard, compared to other countries.

The funny thing is, even though my marriage is saved, I almost wish I was single again with my newfound explosive sex drive and libido. I hope my wife doesn't divorce me for wearing her out every night... ;)

It's amazing that the secret to regaining your sexual vigor and killing ED permanently is all-natural, easy, and affordable.